What Would be the International Reaction to an African Nation Invading and Annexing its Neighbours?

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
The international reaction would be: how rude!

If the African Union asked the UN for legitimizing a operation to liberate the invaded country they'd basically get it (unless China or Russia for some reason vetoes).
 
The international reaction would be: how rude!

If the African Union asked the UN for legitimizing a operation to liberate the invaded country they'd basically get it (unless China or Russia for some reason vetoes).

Most recently, Senegalese troops moved into Gambia, to secure the democratic transition of power to the legitimate candidate. Also we have the intervention of Ethiopian and Kenian troops in Somalia and the Eritrean involvement in this country to conter Ethiopia´s involvement.
 
And let's not forget(though a lot of people seem to) South Africa's 1998 intervention in Lesotho. The Trotskyites and a few other left-wing factions criticized Mandela on that one, but otherwise, crickets.
 
For the sake of argument, I'd prefer to focus on the international community's response to this rather than the plausibility. Let's just assume a country like, say Nigeria found a pretext to invade Benin, Cameroun and Togo. Nigeria either outrightly annexes its conquests or holds rigged referendums on union. Would the West just have to accept the fait accompli?
The rest of ECOWAS along with the African Union and France would give Nigeria an ultimatum to stop, as well as the United Nations and pretty much every international body involved in Africa. In the absence of such a end, they would launch a military intervention. After a brief series of battles, skirmishes, and when sanctions start to wiegh heavily down, this nationalistic president of Nigeria gets coup'd and the military of Nigeria stops fighting. A truce begins and sanctions are gradually lifted as a transition occurs.

This isn't the 1930s anymore. Hell, this isn't even the 1970s.
 
Also Cameroon could probably engage Nigeria on at least a bit of equal footing. It would not be a quick war for sure.

One thing for sure is that Boko Haram gets far more powerful in the chaos.
 
The key here is "annexing". One UN Member state invaded another and completely adding that state to its own is something has really been done once, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which was reversed by force of arms.

IMO, if Saddam had been smart, he would have invaded, allowed for snap elections where everyone who had been in Kuwait for more than 3 months could vote (thus giving a *lot* of Palestinians the vote) put in a puppet government that would allow Iraqi forces to stay and then a year or two later have "referendums" in both countries in favor of merging the countries. That would have taken a *lot* more work for the US to justify reversing.
 
The key here is "annexing". One UN Member state invaded another and completely adding that state to its own is something has really been done once, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, which was reversed by force of arms.

IMO, if Saddam had been smart, he would have invaded, allowed for snap elections where everyone who had been in Kuwait for more than 3 months could vote (thus giving a *lot* of Palestinians the vote) put in a puppet government that would allow Iraqi forces to stay and then a year or two later have "referendums" in both countries in favor of merging the countries. That would have taken a *lot* more work for the US to justify reversing.

So annexation wouldn't work but merger referendums would? That's interesting given that the Anschluss was decided by referendum. It wouldn't be a violation of a people's self determination since they would have voted yes.
 
To get around the issue of French intervention in a former colony, what if Nigeria found a legitimate pretext to invade. For example, secretly sponsoring a coup and then invading on the pretext of restoring stability. Then their forces have to stay in order to maintain order and then a local MP is bribed into asking for an annexation referendum.
 
So annexation wouldn't work but merger referendums would? That's interesting given that the Anschluss was decided by referendum. It wouldn't be a violation of a people's self determination since they would have voted yes.
And France and Italy didn't reverse the Anschluss by force of arms when it happened.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Well, technically Syria is in a civil war, so a NATO intervention then would be much more complicated. An outright invasion from Nigeria wouldn't be met so lightly, just look what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait. And the international world has been heavily concerned about certain events in Africa, like the Rwandan genocide and the South Sudan crisis. No matter in which manner it is conducted, Nigeria won't be able to conduct any invasions without serious consequences.
Kuwait has a lot of oil, though.
 
Kuwait has a lot of oil, though.
Resources don't really play a factor when it comes to international affairs. It doesn't matter if the country you're invading has oil or not, it's still going to met with repercussions. Bush didn't invade Iraq in order to get oil, but to topple Saddam from power.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Resources don't really play a factor when it comes to international affairs. It doesn't matter if the country you're invading has oil or not, it's still going to met with repercussions. Bush didn't invade Iraq in order to get oil, but to topple Saddam from power.
I doubt that Bush Sr. would have militarily intervened to liberate Kuwait if it wasn't for oil, though.
 
I doubt that Bush Sr. would have militarily intervened to liberate Kuwait if it wasn't for oil, though.
America had far more reasons for the Gulf War than just oil. George H.W. Bush hated Saddam and it would not let Iraq be hostile against any neutral country (ex. Kuwait). The only reason America gave aid to Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War because Iran was equally as hated and it showed even more hostility to America. If America was so desperate for oil, it would have invaded Saudi Arabia.
 
Top